Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 15 (4), 13 (3)

(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)  S: 15 (4)--Finding of fact-Whether arrived at concurrently by both Courts below or solely by first appellate Court on appreciation of evidence-Finding of fact, held, becomes final and unless based on misreading of evidence or error in procedure provided by law resulting in error or defect in decision of case on merits cannot be upset in exercise of jurisdiction under S. 15 (4) of Ordinance.- [Finding of fact]. Abdul Majid v. Khalil Ahmad P L D 1955 F C 38 and Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Ismail P L D 1963 S C 466 ref. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)  S. 13 (3), proviso-Purpose-Landlord after getting one shop vacated for his personal use not to be allowed to disturb possession of another tenant on same ground-Landlord having succeeded in obtaining possession of adjacent shop from tenant in another parallel proceeding, instant application for ejectment, held, not . maintainable. As far as the letter of law is concerned the proviso bars the sub sequent institution of an application after the landlord has got any shop vacated in same urban area and not that which was moved before any such vacation, but the purpose behind the incorporation of this proviso was that a landlord after getting one shop vacated for his personal use should not be allowed to disturb the possession of another tenant on same ground. It could not be denied that an appeal is a continuation of same original matter. As the applica tion for the ejectment of respondent is, by virtue of this appeal, still under adjudication, the prevalent position is that this applica tion in all its intents and purposes is. equivalent to a subsequent application for ejectment. By keeping in view the spirit of law, the instant application did not remain maintainable after the land lord succeeded in obtaining possession of the adjacent shop from the tenant under the said parallel proceedings. Bar contained in the proviso to a subsequent application, therefore would still be available to render this application incompetent as having become infructuous.        Date of hearing : 26th January,…